Williams v. Bell et al

Filing 73

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's 71 Motion for an Order to Return his case file exhibits be Denied re ; referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/29/19. Objections to F&R due 14-Day Deadline (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. BELL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-01584-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
ORDER TO RETURN HIS CASE FILE EXHIBITS
[ECF No. 71]

Plaintiff John Wesley Williams is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order to return his case file exhibits,

20

filed January 14, 2018. Plaintiff contends that after his transfer between prison facilities a box of his

21

legal property pertaining to this case was lost. Plaintiff submits that he filed an inmate grievance

22

requesting the return of his property, but he has not received a response. The Court construes

23

Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary injunction.

24

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v.

25

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). For each form of relief sought in

26

federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493

27

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show

28

that he is under threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must
1

1

be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged

2

conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress

3

the injury. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

4

Further, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

5

provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall

6

extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or

7

plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such

8

relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,

9

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. '

10

3626(a)(1)(A). Thus, the federal court’s jurisdiction is limited in nature and its power to issue

11

equitable orders may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying constitutional

12

violations which form the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 555 U.S.

13

at 493; Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-104 (1998).
Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion.

14
15

A preliminary injunction cannot be issued directing prison officials to respond and/or process his

16

inmate grievance. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires inmates to exhaust

17

administrative remedies before filing civil actions in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Thus,

18

exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to prison suits. However, “the PLRA requires

19

only that a prisoner exhaust available remedies, and … a failure to exhaust a remedy that is effectively

20

unavailable does not bar a claim from being heard in federal court.” McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982,

21

986 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2010)). In this action

22

Plaintiff is proceeding solely on his claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
If Plaintiff is unable to exhaust his administrative remedies because prison officials failed to

23
24

respond or to properly process his inmate appeals regarding the loss of his legal property, such

25

argument can be raised when and if the issue arises in the appropriate action. Therefore, an order from

26

this Court requiring prison officials to respond or process Plaintiff’s inmate appeal cannot be granted

27

nor is it necessary.

28

///
2

Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

1
2

United States Constitution protects Plaintiff from being deprived of property without due process of

3

law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 5563 (1974), and Plaintiff has a protected interest in his

4

personal property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). Authorized, intentional

5

deprivations of property are actionable under the Due Process Clause. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468

6

U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985). However, the Due

7

Process Clause is not violated by the random, unauthorized deprivation of property so long as the state

8

provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Barnett

9

v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). In this instance, to the extent that Plaintiff is alleging

10

that his legal property was lost, it is based on a negligent or unauthorized deprivation, which is not

11

actionable because he has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law, and therefore, he

12

may not pursue a due process claim arising out of the unlawful confiscation of his personal property.

13

See Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816-17 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895).
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for an order

14
15

to return his case file exhibits be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

16
17

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

18

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections

19

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

20

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

21

may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.

22

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:

26

January 29, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
3